A class traitor is someone who acts counter to their class-interests. No allegiance required.
That's ridiculous, nobody wants that.
Yet you defend a system which fucks you and the rest of the working class over.
someone who acts counter to their class-interests
So not actually a traitor then, I see.
you defend
I've simply pointed out the reality of the situation, I haven't stated any judgement about it.
So not actually a traitor then, I see.
Linguistics prescriptivism is bullshit.
I've simply pointed out the reality of the siuation
(x) doubt.
Nice to see your bets so hedged. /s
But even if you were correct: Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?
Linguistics prescriptivism
I don't know what that means.
Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?
The moral judgement is irrelevant here. It makes no difference. "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. Your assumptions are unfounded.
I've not made any moral judgement. I've extrapolated your view of the world and said that I don't want that.
"We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot.
That's simply wrong. There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power. Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?
Your assumptions are unfounded.
I'm claiming the same things of yours.
means claiming that someone "uses a word wrong"
I haven't done that. I've pointed out that OP's use of the word "traitor" in their phrase "class traitor" has a different meaning to the ordinary use of the word "traitor". I haven't said their use is wrong.
monopolisation of power
We're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about "monopolisation" of power but I'm talking about gaining power over others. I don't know what you mean by "monopolisation" of power. (And I don't care because whatever you mean, it's clear that it isn't important.)
There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power.
But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.
Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?
No? Only in name. I find it odd when people talk about feudalism in the past tense. To me it seems like feudalism never ended.
I haven't done that
Yes, you have
gaining power over others
That's what monopolisation of power means.
But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.
Yes, exactly that. That's what democracy's supposed to handle.
To me it seems like feudalism never ended.
There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.
Yes, you have
I disagree.
Yes, exactly that.
LOL so you believe there is "a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent" people gaining power over others? You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.
That's what democracy's supposed to handle.
LOL
There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.
Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL
I disagree.
Well, you're wrong.
You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.
There have been a ton of societies which limited the amount of power individuals could amass.
Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL
Yeah. Feudal property relations are totally the same as capitalistic property relations. No difference whatsoever. Pretty much everyone is still a subsistence farmer. /s
Well, you're wrong.
LOL
limited
Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.
So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?
A class traitor is someone who acts counter to their class-interests. No allegiance required.
Yet you defend a system which fucks you and the rest of the working class over.
So not actually a traitor then, I see.
I've simply pointed out the reality of the situation, I haven't stated any judgement about it.
Linguistics prescriptivism is bullshit.
(x) doubt.
Nice to see your bets so hedged. /s
But even if you were correct: Shouldn't we as a society remove the system which enables people to monopolize power, if it's "human nature" to exploit others?
I don't know what that means.
The moral judgement is irrelevant here. It makes no difference. "We" cannot stop human beings from gaining power over others so the question is moot. Your assumptions are unfounded.
It means claiming that someone "uses a word wrong", referring to a supposed authority on language, rather than acknowledging that a word's usage determines its' meaning
I've not made any moral judgement. I've extrapolated your view of the world and said that I don't want that.
That's simply wrong. There's a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent monopolisation of power. Notice that there are way less kings around than a few hundred years ago?
I'm claiming the same things of yours.
I haven't done that. I've pointed out that OP's use of the word "traitor" in their phrase "class traitor" has a different meaning to the ordinary use of the word "traitor". I haven't said their use is wrong.
We're talking at cross purposes. You're talking about "monopolisation" of power but I'm talking about gaining power over others. I don't know what you mean by "monopolisation" of power. (And I don't care because whatever you mean, it's clear that it isn't important.)
But not prevent the acquisition of power over others, or prevent exploitation.
No? Only in name. I find it odd when people talk about feudalism in the past tense. To me it seems like feudalism never ended.
Yes, you have
That's what monopolisation of power means.
Yes, exactly that. That's what democracy's supposed to handle.
There are distinct differences of capitalism and feudalism.
I disagree.
LOL so you believe there is "a ton of historical and anthropological evidence of societal structures that prevent" people gaining power over others? You believe there have been "a ton" of human societies with no exploitation? You have no idea what you're talking about.
LOL
Oh I see! Distinct differences! LOL
Well, you're wrong.
There have been a ton of societies which limited the amount of power individuals could amass.
Yeah. Feudal property relations are totally the same as capitalistic property relations. No difference whatsoever. Pretty much everyone is still a subsistence farmer. /s
LOL
Ah! So now you're changing your tune! Not "preventing" but "limiting". Best of luck, maybe you'll get to reality in the end.
So, amassing of power can't be limited in your opinion?
Why are you asking me that?
Because that's what you're implying.